From: PlanetQ@aol.com Date: Fri, 13 Aug 1999 21:31:41 EDT Subject: MMOW's Conflict of Interest by Billy Hileman Permission is granted to forward, post, re-print, and publish the following article in its entirety and with attribution. Please notify Planet Q via e-mail (PlanetQ@aol.com) if you publish this article. ************************************** MMOW's Conflict of Interest Y2K event continues to place profit before process by Billy Hileman ŠPlanet Q On August 5, 1999 Robin Tyler, executive producer of the Millennium March on Washington (MMOW), released an article that sets out to correct `The libelous misinformation and untruths in Billy Heilman's (sic) last press release.' Robin seems to be determined to discredit me and thus the points of my editorial, `Astroturf Organizing.' Whatever you think of me, the content of my article stands on its own merit. It seems like a small point " what's the deal with the hotel rooms? However, the hotel issue is central to how this event was put together. Robin contends that she now has only one room booked for the weekend of the MMOW. Fine. The real issue is described by the following facts: a) thousands of hotel rooms were booked before the date of the MMOW was announced on April 30, 1998; b) very early in 1998, Robin talked with Ray Hill of Houston, Texas (and national co-chair of the 1979 MOW) about making money off of hotel rooms. Recently Hill said, `Her new spin makes it all seem like part of the MOW plan but that was not her explanation in the early conversation. It was more like: If the march has financial problems, she could donate some of the money back to help cover them'; c) Robin admits she booked many rooms. `As a tour operator, I knew to call and secure these rooms,' Tyler told OutSmart, a Houston lgbt paper; d) the Ad Hoc committee has requested information about the travel and accommodations agreements brokered by Robin and the MMOW. The board has refused to divulge any of the important details; e) MMOW, Inc. did not exist until July 1998"months after the date was announced and rooms were booked; f) Robin Tyler was named `executive producer' in February 1998. After a one-week `national recruitment process' at the end of June 1998, Robin Tyler was again named executive producer. All of this should make everyone question, `What is going on here?' It may be true that all the hotel rooms are now in the name of the Millennium March, but it was not always that way. Robin Tyler held some very powerful financial cards, i.e., hotel rooms, in her hand during the inception of the proposed event. Her intent may have been to prevent hotels from ripping off people who attend the MMOW. However, it still was highly irresponsible for HRC and MCC, the original sponsors of the MMOW, to allow a process that mimicked `insider trading' to be the organizing basis for a civil rights march. Recent information about AIDS Rides show that only a small fraction of money raised went to help people with HIV/AIDS. Promoters made off with huge profits. Is the MMOW" an organization that has not released a financial statement"above financial scrutiny? (I asked about a financial statement in Chicago. Associate producer Ginny Foat said they had one for 1998 and she would mail it to me. It hasn't arrived.) Robin implies that organizing previous marches were not democratic. No organizing structure that aspires to speak for an entire community can ever be perfect. However, the three previous marches were committed to democratic principles. The MMOW is not. In the past community activists held national meetings before calling for the march. MMOW did not. In March of 1991 the executive directors of NGLTF and HRCF, Urvashi Vaid and Tim McFeeley organized a meeting in Washington, D.C. for activists to discuss a possible third march on Washington. Minneapolis City Councilmember Brian Coyle had pushed the idea at the 1990 Creating Change Conference. During the March `91 meeting, and a second national meeting in May, dozens of proposals and concerns were discussed by hundreds of activists. Proposals for marches in 1992 and 1993 were discussed. Bi-annual MOWs with a permanent committee; 52 regional marches: states, DC and Puerto Rico; and a MOW before every presidential election were all proposed. Stonewall 25 organizers pleaded that no national action take place before 1994. A call for inclusion of youth in the organizing was made and a request to be aware of the dates of the many women's music festivals was voiced. Native American gays and lesbians explained that they could not participate in the fall of 1992 - the 500th anniversary of the survival of indigenous cultures. And that is a very small sample. This was not done for the MMOW. It was decided by a small group, including Robin Tyler, Elizabeth Birch, and Troy Perry that there would be a national mobilization of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender communities on April 30, 2000 and it would be called the Millennium March on Washington for Equality. The discussion of whether to march or not and what a march would compete with was never on the table. It was a done deal. Robin says past national meetings were not representative of the country. For the 93 MOW virtually everything that could be done was done to assure representation. The organizing body was not simply a board of directors. It was made of a national steering committee (NSC) that had 30 national organization seats, 15 constituency seats, 4 seats for each of 17 geographical regions, a 13 member executive committee and a hired national organizer. The gender parity and minimum 50% people of color requirement applied to the entire 127 member NSC. Regions chose their own representatives and did fundraising to send their reps to the NSC meetings. It was not a small group of people who could afford to travel to meetings in different parts of the country. The 1993 NSC was in place and working 16 months ahead of the event. Compare that to a 21 seat self-selecting MMOW board that only gets 10 members to its meetings and with less than 9 months to go still can't pull together its leadership council. The structure of the 1993 MOW was adopted in Chicago in August of 1991"the third open national meeting that year. Regions had until January of 1992 to organize and elect their representatives. At the Jan. 1992 NSC meeting in Los Angeles only one region sent a delegation that failed to meet the gender and racial guidelines. That region was region 4 " So. Calif." and Robin Tyler petitioned the Interim Coordinating Committee to waive the gender and people of color requirement for region 4 " to no avail. The MMOW has not even scratched the surface in trying to set up a truly inclusive national organization to represent our communities. Robin Tyler, who represents the MMOW board of directors should be more careful about bashing the previous democratic efforts. Less than perfect democracy in 1993 is no excuse for the closed process that has been forced upon us. It's not that all national marches must follow the same path. The Ad Hoc Committee simply points out that this event has completely abandoned the principles that were at the core of the organizing structures of the three previous marches. At the heart of the MMOW is a secret financial plan presented by Robin to HRC and MCC early in 1998. The document driving this event is a private contract between Robin Tyler and MMOW, Inc. If it would become clear to everyone that the MMOW is a colossal mistake, the reason it would not be called off is because of hotel contracts. That is why we are marching on Washington. To protect the financial security of people who made a unilateral decision to march and are now over a barrel and scrambling to make it look like the whole thing was a grass roots effort. That has been true since February 1998 and has been the driving force behind the refusal to open the discussion on whether to march or not. Robin asserts that the theme of `Faith and Family' for the March is a lie that continues to be spread solely because it inflames certain segments of our community. It is not an idea that originates with the Ad Hoc Committee. Themes for the event were reported in a Feb. 6, 1998 Washington Blade article about the proposed event. `The vision behind this march will be to keep it focused on equal rights,' [HRC spokesperson David Smith, said]. Smith said the event will also push themes of Gay families and faith. Therefore, HRC is the likely source of this `lie'. Beyond that, Tyler twists concern about this non-theme into an anti-religious meaning. Troy Perry himself elaborates on how important previous marches have been to MCC. In a June 5, 1998 press statement Perry said, `By way of example, the UFMCC has found the Marches provide a stellar opportunity to leverage our participation. Among the ways we have done this: We have held worship services at the Lincoln Memorial at each of the Marches... We conducted the largest mass same-sex wedding ever held... We have promoted UFMCC's participation through our internal communications to inspire and mobilize our members... We have leveraged our participation in the Marches to build strategic alliances with other organizations.' In 1987 I marched with the `Why Can't Sharon Come Home?' contingent. In 1993 we worked hard to get the permit for Constitution Avenue for MCC's Wedding. It was difficult because another group already had a permit for the street. While Troy Perry and I have differing opinions on the MMOW, I still have great affection for him. I am so grateful to have played a part in making the 1993 Wedding happen " an event where Karen and Sharon were together. Robin and the MMOW have completely missed the point of concern about the non-theme `faith and family.' The issue is: what is displaced when the focus is `faith and family?' But, one cannot even ask the question. Robin says the MMOW is more democratic because of their platform poll that allows all lgbt people to vote. Then she says, `First, this March has a very clear and well-defined focus. It is a March for LGBT federal civil rights. Billy Heilman (sic) and others of his group have demanded that we March on a platform of other issues they think are important.' I have not, and the Ad Hoc Committee has not made any demand about the platform. I have critiqued the platform poll ballot. Further, this statement exposes the opportunity to vote as a sham. It looks like another done deal. `It is a March for LGBT federal civil rights.' Robin doesn't stop there in making the platform ballot irrelevant. She writes, `Like many in our community, I've done lots of marching. I've marched for black civil rights, in the anti-war movement, and for the equal rights amendment. I've marched for affirmative action, for choice, for farm worker rights, and for the rights of other oppressed peoples. Now, I'm marching with our community for our LGBT rights.' From this you can list what will and won't be in the platform. Even more important than the fact Tyler does not seem to be bound by the results of the platform poll are the questions, `Who is the poll reaching? Who is responding?' There clearly are gender, race, and class issues involved in conducting an unscientific poll almost exclusively on the internet. To call this `democracy' is absurd. Ironically, positive responses to the MMOW, when they occur, are a result of the genuine attempt to adhere to democratic principles because positive reactions to the MMOW are exclusively the result of the good work done in 1979, 1987, and 1993. Just take a look at whose video they are using to promote this thing. In my editorial, `Astroturf Organizing,' I made the following point about the lack of reference to race issues in the MMOW platform ballot. `In 1987 one of the 7 demands was, `An end to racism in this country and Apartheid in South Africa.' In 1993" `We demand an end to racial and ethnic discrimination in all forms.'... `On April 25, 1993 Ben Chavis, then executive director of the NAACP stood on the MOW stage and said, `We have come to make it very clear that our nation's oldest and largest civil rights organization ...the NAACP, ...we stand with you. And as the NAACP stands with you today, we want you to stand with us as we fight against racism in America.' `The millennium platform ballot, devoid of any reference to race issues, ignores the history of our national MOWs' commitment to deal with racism and rejects the NAACP's invitation to stand side-by-side in the fight against racism in our country.' I personally don't understand why the MMOW would reject Ben Chavis' invitation. This choice by the MMOW"to steer clear of the civil rights movement"by itself convinces me that the organizers haven't done any analysis of the political progression of the past three marches. Boldly, the 1993 MOW proclaimed, `It's a Simple Matter of Justice.' The event positioned the lgbt movement into the historic civil rights struggle in our country. The ability to do so grew out of adherence to democratic principles at the core of the organizing structure. This is the important legacy of our national mobilizations. If we cannot continue on that path, then the choice to abandon it is the most profound reason why our communities are not ready to march. It's time for an open process. ************************************** Billy Hileman is the publisher of Pittsburgh's Planet Q newspaper, a member of the Ad Hoc Committee for an Open Process and was a National Co-Chair for the 1993 March on Washington. Permission is granted to forward, post, re-print, and publish this article in its entirety and with attribution. Please notify Planet Q via e-mail (PlanetQ@aol.com) if you publish this article.